Our Constitution has twenty-seven amendments, most of them of little consequence. Article V supermajorities can be assembled to patch things up here and there, but fundamental reform has proven to be almost entirely out of reach.

The first ten amendments were of course passed by Congress at the dawn of the new federal government (along with what became the Twenty-seventh Amendment), essentially as a minor concession to the Constitution's critics. After that, the Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments are the only revisions of great importance. And even the Fourteenth Amendment--likely the most dramatic constitutional change (of the formal sort, anyway)--would not have been adopted without a number of legally-questionable antics on the part of its supporters.

This might be fine and well, if it actually entrenched the original constitutional regime. But that is mere theory, rather than practical effect. Instead, the near-impossibility of formal amendment has led to general ambivalence toward constitutionalism generally, followed by outright disregard of crystal-clear text. At the same time, blatant judicial overreaching has been shielded from any prospect of political correction.

So what should the rule be? I don't have a definitive answer. But perhaps a mere three-fifths of each house of Congress should be required for proposal, and ratification by two-thirds, rather than three-fourths, of the states should be sufficient.

I've noticed that, generally, Amendments are passed in spurts, so when we want to pass Amendments, most of the time we can.

or when there is one-party domination of government (such as, post-Civil War)

Logged

“They cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts. That’s the way it was with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't concern you.'" -Vladimir Putin

I am personally opposed to making it easier to pass constitutional amendments. Prohibition already made it through under the current rules. Making it easier to amend the Constitution could easily lead to the passage of similar garbage amendments. I tend to prefer a streamlined document.

Also, I consider the 13th, 15th, & 19th amendments to be changes of great importance, since they were instrumental to securing individual rights for everyone.

You're missing the point a bit, which is not so much that it's too hard to pass amendments, but that it's almost impossible to pass comprehensive amendments that actually change the fundamentals of how the country is governed... resulting in such change occurring anyway without strict basis in constitutional text. Silly things like prohibition or a flag burning ban or whatever are much easier to pass in part because they can be put into a simple amendment that can be slapped onto the end of the text, and that every voter can understand. Putting all the "unwritten Constitution" about the exact role of the Senate in confirmation votes, the way the Hosue and Senate interact, the way presidential electors are chosen and the way they vote, etc etc etc into the written document would be much harder.

Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally

"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya

Our Constitution has twenty-seven amendments, most of them of little consequence. Article V supermajorities can be assembled to patch things up here and there, but fundamental reform has proven to be almost entirely out of reach.

The first ten amendments were of course passed by Congress at the dawn of the new federal government (along with what became the Twenty-seventh Amendment), essentially as a minor concession to the Constitution's critics. After that, the Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments are the only revisions of great importance. And even the Fourteenth Amendment--likely the most dramatic constitutional change (of the formal sort, anyway)--would not have been adopted without a number of legally-questionable antics on the part of its supporters.

This might be fine and well, if it actually entrenched the original constitutional regime. But that is mere theory, rather than practical effect. Instead, the near-impossibility of formal amendment has led to general ambivalence toward constitutionalism generally, followed by outright disregard of crystal-clear text. At the same time, blatant judicial overreaching has been shielded from any prospect of political correction.

So what should the rule be? I don't have a definitive answer. But perhaps a mere three-fifths of each house of Congress should be required for proposal, and ratification by two-thirds, rather than three-fourths, of the states should be sufficient.

The whole point is that amendments shouldn't be made lightly, and regular laws, which can be rescinded easily, should be used to deal with most issues.

If you're so concerned about activist judges why not weaken the courts instead of the amendment change?

Logged

"348. The rest of the party appreciates it if I don't start the game in Cyberpsychosis.""I will kill 120,000 people" ~ Barack ObamaThe United States is not only the world's first suburban nation, but it will also be its last. The world cannot sustain any more economies like ours. - Kenneth T. Jackson

Not a good idea in my opinion, the Founding Fathers knew how hard it would be to amend the constitution, and that was the point

No offense DWTL....but I'm starting to really hate any explanations that use supposed "Founding Father" wisdom or intent as the main line of argument.

I don't care, and I don't think it should matter what exactly the founding fathers thought. Of course...when the constitution was drafted, they made the right decisions and everything....but look people, it's more than 200 years later. Laws written today should reflect current issues and problems...NOT what a group of men 200 years ago thought would be best.

______________________________________________________________

Yes, I support making it easier to amend the Constitution. Not quite sure how easy I'd make it...but anyway.

Not a good idea in my opinion, the Founding Fathers knew how hard it would be to amend the constitution, and that was the point

No offense DWTL....but I'm starting to really hate any explanations that use supposed "Founding Father" wisdom or intent as the main line of argument.

I don't care, and I don't think it should matter what exactly the founding fathers thought. Of course...when the constitution was drafted, they made the right decisions and everything....but look people, it's more than 200 years later. Laws written today should reflect current issues and problems...NOT what a group of men 200 years ago thought would be best.

My point is that the Founding Fathers had a good idea that I agree with, not as much that it is what the Founding Fathers said so it must be. The idea of changing the constitution, something much, much more powerful than a law cannot be something that is just flaunted around. It has to be really, really uber-popular and necessary. If we made amendments easier, a slew of them would pop up dealing with things that shouldn't have constitutional amendments involved at all.

Never make it easier for the Federal government to give itself more power.

Vote "NO" on the Amendment Amendment idea.

Logged

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear... by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165)

BTW....I am originally from Miami-Dade County in Florida. Doesn't that give me the right to vote at least twice in these polls?

Logged

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear... by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165)